Yeah I know he is a long shot. But I love the fact he is running, fighting for conservatism, and does not give a rat's ass what the opposition thinks about it. Yet he does it with a smile and enthusiasm.

Andrew Breitbart (seated in front of the Don's desk, facing the camera)

I believe in America. America has made my fortune. And I raised my daughter in the

American fashion. I gave her freedom, but -- I taught her never to dishonor her family. She

found a boyfriend; not an Italian. She was twittering with him; She was twittering all the time. Then he sent her a picture of his pup tent. This is disgraceful. I wept. Why did I weep? She was the light of my life -- beautiful girl. Now she will be the twitter pup tent girl.

[Breitbart breaks down. The Don gestures to RSM to give Breitbart a drink]

Sorry...

[Breitbart, taking the drink, sips from the shot glass]

I -- I went to the media, like a good American. This boy was brought to a media trial. The Democrat party gave them a suspended sentence. Suspended sentence!

He went free that very day! I stood in the courtroom like a fool. And that bastard,

he smiled at me. Then I said to Matt Drudge, "for justice, we must go to Don Herman Cain."

DON HERMAN CAIN (sitting behind his desk, petting a cat)

Why did you go to the media? Why didn't you come to me first?

BREITBART

What do you want of me? Tell me anything. But do what I beg you to do.

DON HERMAN CAIN

What is that?

[Breitbart gets up to whisper his request into Don Corleone's ear]

That I cannot do.

BREITBARTI'll give you anything you ask.

DON HERMAN CAINWe've known each other many years, but this is the first time you came to me for counsel,

for help. I can't remember the last time that you invited me to your house for a cup of

coffee, even though my wife is godmother to your only child. But let's be frank here: you

never wanted my friendship. And uh, you were afraid to be in my debt.

BREITBARTI didn't want to get into trouble.

DON HERMAN CAINI understand. You found paradise in America, had a good trade, made a good living. The

media tollerated you. And you didn't need a friend of me. But

uh, now you come to me and you say -- "Don Corleone give me justice." -- But you don't ask

with respect. You don't offer friendship. You don't even think to call me Godfather. Instead,

you come into my house on the day my daughter is to be married, and you uh ask me to do

murder, for money.

BREITBARTI ask you for justice.

DON HERMAN CAINThat is not justice; your daughter is still alive.

BREITBART

Then they can suffer then, as she suffers.

(then)

How much shall I pay you?

DON HERMAN CAIN (stands, turning his back toward Brietbart)

Breitbart...Brietbart... What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? Had

you come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruined your daughter would be suffering

this very day. And that by chance if an honest man such as yourself should make enemies,

then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you.

BREITBART

Be my friend --

(then, after bowing and the Don shrugs)

-- Godfather?

DON HERMAN CAIN (after Bonasera kisses his hand)

Good.

(then)

Some day, and that day may never come, I'll call upon you to do a service for me. But uh,

until that day -- accept this justice as a gift on my daughter's wedding day.

BREITBART (as he leaves the room)

Grazie, Godfather.

DON HERMAN CAIN

Prego.

(then, to RSM, after Breitbart leaves the room)

Ah, give this to ah, Dan Collins. I want reliable people; people that aren't gonna be carried

away. I'm mean, we're not murderers, despite of what this web developer says.

Herman Cain could do a good job as President. The Media always scorns him as a Pizza owner who dares to act like he can be a leader. Herman is also a mathematician with a computer science degree from Purdue. He created business turnarounds for Burger king and Godfather Pizza while working for their corporate owner, Pilsbury. He is a former Federal Reserve Bank director. His Senate run in 2004 was a close loss for a first time candidate. Herman beat a stage 4 colon cancer three years ago. He is always a sharp and upbeat leader. Palin would do well put Cain on her ticket.

Herman Cain (born December 13, 1945) is an American businessman, columnist, and radio host from Georgia. He is best known as the former chairman and CEO of Godfather's Pizza. He is a former deputy chairman (1992–94) and chairman (1995–96) of the civilian board of directors to the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Before his business and economics career he worked as a mathematician in ballistics for the United States Navy.[2] Cain's newspaper column is distributed by North Star Writers Group. He lives in the Atlanta suburbs, where he also serves as a minister.

In January 2011, Cain announced he had formed an exploratory committee for a potential presidential campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and on May 21, 2011, Cain officially announced his candidacy.[3] As of early June, 2011 Cain's candidacy was reported to have engendered enthusiasm among the Republican rank and file.[4]

Cain was born in Memphis, Tennessee on December 13, 1945, the son of Lenora (née Davis) and Luther Cain, Jr.[5][6] His mother was a cleaner and his father was a chauffeur.[2] He was raised in Georgia.[7] He graduated from Morehouse College in 1967 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics and received a Master of Science degree in computer science from Purdue University in 1971,[8] while he was also working full-time in ballistics for the U.S. Department of the Navy. Cain has authored four books: Leadership is Common Sense (1997), Speak as a Leader (1999), CEO of SELF (October 2001), and They Think You're Stupid (May 2005).

Go to the article to which Instapundit links. It's the worst sort of hackery. Multiple quotes from Cain are grotesquely distorted and misrepresented.

The author, for example, claims that Cain said "Palin is not a contender", when he really said, when pressed on whether she'd run, "If I had to guess, I'd say no."

He claims Cain said "Rick Santorum is a Disgrace to Reagan" when Cain stated that Santorum was too negative to fellow Republicans (as this negativity only helps the Democrats.) And the author then called Cain a hypocrite; because, I guess, this was a criticism of Santorum.

Someone more familiar with Instapundit, fill me in: Is he endorsing this buffoon's hatchet job, by linking to it without comment, basically parroting what this asshole Ujala Sehgal says in his shitty little article?

He might be right. I find myself hoping Rick Perry runs. I don't know if he's the answer, but he's credible enough that anyone capable of beating him gains. And I suspect if he announced he'd be among the top three favorites virtually immediately.

I think the criticisms of Cain on his Afghanistan response carry weight. If you're going to throw your hat in the ring you do your homework on the major issues beforehand. Promising to catch up later is only better than those who have already concluded incorrectly.

This isn't being asked an arcane detail on energy policy. I think he hurt his chances with this reponse on this topic.

I do love the idea of Cain, as the GOP nominee, going head to head with President Obama in a debate.

Scott M, one of our local radio guys has been playing a fantastic clip of Mr. Cain going head to head with Bill Clinton, in the 90's, over the proposed healthcare reform's impact on small business. Although Clinton doesn't do badly, Mr. Cain is just amazing- he knew the numbers and the issue perfectly, and was amazingly respectful but powerful to President Clinton while debating him. I'm not sure why the nat'l media hasn't picked it up yet, but I'm sure that you could find it on YouTube.

Marshal, are you talking about during the debate, when he said that he didn't have a plan for Afghanistan, because he's not privy to all of the intelligence that would allow him to make an informed decision?

Because that sounds like a pretty rational, honest answer to me.

Cain dares to admit when he doesn't know something. We mustn't have that -- we have to have blustering bullshitters who think they know it all.

Yes. He should have stated an opinion [now that we're there we have to win] followed by a disclaimer that he of course doesn't have access to all data and cannot say with certainty what orders he would give his commanders. This places the uncertainty at a lower and more reasonable level.

You just don't have time to develop expertise from scratch on every topic. My first thought on this was 'well if he hasn't spent enough time to outline his basic thoughts on Afghanistan he probably isn't ready for anything else either. So are we voting for 6-12 months of uncertainty?'. This is not a winning message.

Godfathers Pizza is mostly in the Great Plains states and Illinois. Growing up in the 1980s, it was the first real pizza place to open up where I was a kid and we would go there frequently -- it was in the mall, which is now virtually dead. I still find it to be delicious and best medium thickness crust I ever had. During my recent visit to see family I had seen that it had finally closed -- the mall won't be far behind.

Peter Hoh, please link to a transcript that shows that Cain said Santorum is a "disgrace to Reagan."

Because that's what the article claims Cain said.

If that's not a hit-piece, maybe you'd like to receive the same treatment:

Peter Hoh hates all Hispanics, and questions their literacy: When debating a fellow commenter, Hoh spat out "Did you even read...Hombre?", his mouth flecked with spittle and his face distorted in hateful rage.

Pastafarian, the headlines are not direct quotes. They are summaries, at most spun a little further than their supporting quotes. But they aren't misleading, which is what you are trying to do with what you've written about me.

If this National Journal piece counts as a hit piece, then you've got to develop a thicker skin.

Marshal, if by "exact certitude" you're making a veiled reference to that series of obscene photos showing a hirsute gentleman popping out of his loincloth, as I've explained to the authorities, I was #l33t-hacked!!1!

"Herman is also a mathematician with a computer science degree from Purdue. He created business turnarounds for Burger king and Godfather Pizza while working for their corporate owner, Pilsbury. He is a former Federal Reserve Bank director"

Seven, I think we've already had this discussion. I see the fact that he's not a career politician as a plus.

And the last guy that won had something like 2 years experience in a state legislature and 2 years experience in the senate. Cain's experience at Godfather Pizza was more applicable to the job of POTUS than anything Obama ever did.

And no, Cain's lack of experience in the government swamp doesn't make him another Obama (anticipating your answer). He's nothing at all like Obama.

NYT NYer.....John Gurwitz of San Antonio News has a column in syndication today that talks about how as of 01/20/09, suddenly the anti-war crowd not only dissappeared, but seem to support wars in places like Libya and Pakistan. How Cindy Sheehan suddenly no longer has "absolute moral authority".

Same thing will happen with so-called "racism" if Cain runs for President. Suddenly you can attack an African-American all you want. And even use real racism against him (remember Janice Rogers Brown and the cartoons>)

What you guys don't get is having some conservatives in the race and building enthusiasm with the grass roots base and tea partiers is a very good thing for the GOP. I know Cain has a very uphill battle, but if Obama could win, then Cain or Palin can certainly win too. But even if they do not, do you think their participation in debates makes other candidates better too? I do. Pawlenty evolved from a jelly fish to an animal with an actual backbone from exposure to candidates like Cain and Palin.

I’m through with [the GOP establishment]. Johnny Tobin can eat a dick. Eric Kain can have the balls. Davids Frum and Brooks can battle over first entry rights to the squeakhole, while Jen Rubin can have squatters rights over whatever’s left. Honestly, the idea that Palin would fuck up the standard, grade-school version of Paul Revere’s ride that these geniuses relied upon to ridicule her tells you just how much they hope she fails; that is, they were so invested in her proving her stupidity that they themselves were willing to believe that a woman who they KNOW has a hard on for this country didn’t know the popular mythology of, say, School House Rock.

Which tells you much more about this gaggle of pretentious douchebags than it does about Ms Palin.

The problem with CEO types as politicians is that they are used to being in charge, and having their commands followed to the letter. That works well in boardrooms and in the military, but not so well when you are dependent upon the collective will of 535 congresscritters to implement your program.

Dear Arnold learned that to his detriment at the state level when he tried to take on the Cali legislature, and got his balls chopped off in the process.

Good point MadMan. One problem Kerry had was that he got 3 purple hearts in 4 months, even though never been hospitalized, then got sent home, and then spit on other veterans.

I don't think Cain was a Black for only 4 months, and I would be really surprised if he joined an anti-Black organization and gave testimony to congress about how bad Black folk are.

But yes, I do agree with your point. You don't nominate someone primarily due to the fact that they can check off membership in a group (well, Obama has dark colored skin, so it did work for him). Republicans need someone who can win on their own. Now, the VP position is known as the checklist spot.

The problem with CEO types as politicians is that they are used to being in charge, and having their commands followed to the letter. That works well in boardrooms and in the military, but not so well when you are dependent upon the collective will of 535 congresscritters to implement your program.

Dear Arnold learned that to his detriment at the state level when he tried to take on the Cali legislature, and got his balls chopped off in the process.

The first point has merit, but Ahnold was never a CEO that I know of. And his big problem was listening to Maria.

Seven: I have admired your posts for some 4 years now--I dont agree with you on "electibility" but you make the obvious argument. I think the times have changed enough to merit considering Mr Cain's argument--now I suspect he could get the job done.

And it would be wonderful to seeing Mr Cain go head to head with Mr Obama--

I continue to argue the election of a cloture proof republican senate is the best antidote to Mr Obama's lunacy--if the republicans have to sacrifice a presidential nominee for (what I think) is the larger good of emasculating Mr Obama in the congress, then we as a nation will be better for it.

There's a difference here you may not be noticing, so let me spell it out for you. I say that Palin should not be the nominee, though I think if she runs she has a good chance of winning the nomination. I say that Cain will not be the nominee. He has no chance of winning.

Our "elites" have a lot of mess-ups to answer for, but that doesn't mean you can just run a country based on good messaging, or the right attitude.

Even idealistic presidents elected by idealistic people for idealistic reasons have to go into rooms full of cynical, hardened types (Congress, foreign leaders, even the cabinet room) and hammer out compromises wiley enough not to jeopardize anything essential and maintain a winning hand for the next engagement.

Some people seem to think you can just cast the James Bakers and Schultzes and Scowcrofts overboard and have a world run by nothing but Reagan Reagan Reagan, or Cain Cain Cain-- and that'll be it.

This is delusional. Even if you don't want your political professional, worldly-wise realistis and RINOs at the top, those people *are* part of what makes the world go around. Short of a Robespierrist bloodbath, they ain't going away (and they'll always come back!).

I'm not saying this to anyone in particular: I'm just saying. People need to make a little peace with reality.

Lucius nails it. This is what I have been saying -- not as well -- about Palin as well. The world won't change because one person is elected. That's not how the sausage is made, even in the best of times.

Hombre, my response to your first post happened before I read your second post, in which you mentioned specifics. I wrote a quick response, mostly because I read the National Journal article yesterday, and I thought it was a pretty good piece for the Cain campaign.

Now to be honest, I don't know how often National Journal blends the chattiness of an opinion column with a straight news piece. The "What Cain Really Thinks" is a bit of a mash of the two.

But I'm willing to bet that Cain won't be complaining about the it. The writer treats him as a serious candidate, and that's got to make him happy.

I think he is a serious candidate. He, more than any other announced candidate for the nomination has a legitimate claim to being an outsider, and this year, that has a certain appeal to a large slice of the GOP base.

I can see that you and Pastafarian have taken umbrage at the headings, but I think you are being too sensitive about the headings.

There's no claim that Cain said Palin is not a contender. That's a paraphrase, spun just a little to create some interest. It's not too far from the supporting quote.

Are you going to go after Reynolds for paraphrasing Cain? After all, Reynolds doesn't provide a link in which Cain is quoted as saying, "If you don’t vote for me, you’ll be stuck with a bunch of losers."

I urge you all to read [Lucius's] post [1:52] carefully and consider it.

It's a cynical, straw man argument based on the notion that people who are looking for a nominee other than a typical white, male Republican member of the political class are oversimplifying the solution to the country's problems.

The one doesn't follow the other and it is patronizing to suppose otherwise.

My reaction to the joyful new attacks on Cain as a clown who flips pizza dough is to recognize a sign that the "Palin is a dope" meme has lost its traction. Cain gets to be the next scapegoat that no political writer cares about destroying. Bob Dylan once wrote,"... they have knives and forks on their table, so they have to cut something." But watch for Herman to skewer them right back.

If the MSM keeps this up, I may have to go watch his performance at the stealth debate...

Seriously -- go read the "article."

My paraphrase of the first several sentences:- Cain seems loveable, but he's not.- Cain is just the token black.- Now he's trying to be a "maverick" (everyone roll your eyes in unison with me, please.)- Most candidates are careful not to criticize each other, because they are looking for possible VP slots and allies, but Cain doesn't. (Take home: stop talking about him as a great VP choice.)

And that's before she gets started with twisting his words.

Example: Rick Santorum dismissed Herman Cain, saying "He's never won an election." Herman Cain's spokeswoman replied with a very boilerplate invocation of Reagan's 11th commandment, a call to our common mission to defeat Obama, and her belief that Ronald Reagan would be proud of Herman Cain.

Ujala Seghal paraphrased this exchange as: "Rick Santorum is a Disgrace to Reagan."

Her paraphrase certainly seems to support her assertion that Herman Cain is "candidly denouncing" the other candidates -- the actual remarks, from his spokeswoman, clearly don't.

Heck, she just completely made up the "denouncing" of Pawlenty. Her words: "... we'd assume Cain feels the same about [Pawlenty]." Love the royal "we" there.

I could keep going on -- he was asked if he thinks Sarah Palin will run for President and he said he was uncertain, but if he had to guess he guessed no. She paraphrased this as, "Sarah Palin is Not a Contender."

Seriously. Go read the entire article --- if you skim the bold-faced paraphrases at the start of each paragraph, you are sure to find something mean and nasty he supposedly said about someone you like. If you read the text, you'll find he said nothing remotely objectionable.

I don't even particularly like Herman Cain, yet, but I can spot a ridiculous hit piece like this one a mile away.

Peter Hoh wrote: Are you going to go after Reynolds for paraphrasing Cain? After all, Reynolds doesn't provide a link in which Cain is quoted as saying, "If you don’t vote for me, you’ll be stuck with a bunch of losers."

Does that make Reynolds' post a "hit piece"?

Was Reynolds paraphrasing Cain or was he paraphrasing the article?

Do you see a difference? I do.

Evidently you are declining my invitation to cite a similar piece about any other candidate.

Hombre -- Not Christian baiting at all. There's nothing about religion here at all. Nothing. It's a metaphor: I assert that you believe that there will be some massive, permanent change in the political landscape if only [insert outsider's name here] is elected.

Like 7 Machos, I don't think Cain has much of a chance of being the nominee. That said, I can say why the media will jump on him. A successful black businessman pushing a theme of hardwork, determination, and individual achievement is an absolute threat to liberal philosophy. Look how much shit Bill Cosby got for saying blacks need to start taking individual responsibility for high out-of-wedlock birth rate. The man was excoriated. Now multiply that by 100, and that is the threat of Herman Cain. It's not a matter of whether he wins or not, it's a matter of his message and his story getting out.

While it's true that she doesn't *directly* attribute the bold-faced statements to Herman Cain, she does say: "Now enter Cain, who over the last few days has been more than happy to candidly denounce the other big names in the party."

This is the last sentence of her first paragraph -- and the whole thing is written in classic student essay format, the kind we all learned to write in high school. That makes this sentence the thesis that her entire essay is meant to support.

The bold-faced lines summarize what each paragraph will show about Herman Cain's *denunciation* of each candidate.

The statement, "Sarah Palin is not a contender." can be fairly read as a denunciation, at least of Sarah Palin as a candidate. Herman Cain's actual statement, that he doesn't think she plans to run, cannot be so read.

All words I am using to describe the fervor with which a contingent of conservatives believes that electing someone with not enough or simply no political experience will somehow bring about massive political change.

I won't go into it in detail, because I think it will be wasted, but this messianic streak in American politics is common on both sides of the aisle. We saw it in 2008 with Obama. I say it will be wasted because you so superficially understand culture that you think that using religious metaphors is an attack on religion itself. Which is quite silly.

The thing is, sometimes the world really does change because someone is elected.

Not overnight, of course, and not without a huge amount of work. And not as much as the true believers thought it would. (Heck, you can see that in the last two and a half years.) But elections really do matter. And things really do change.

Things that we once assumed could never happen very quickly become the "new normal." And we forget that they ever seemed hard or unlikely.

Consider: Newt Gingrich led Republicans to power in the House for the first time in 40 years -- and got welfare reform, a capital gains tax cut, and the first balanced budget in a generation.

How many Democrats do you hear screaming for a return to "Welfare" as we knew it?

That change was radical, hard-fought, and permanent.

Consider the last election.

I'm sure a President McCain would have done things I'd have hated. I feel certain we'd have an amnesty bill by now, but it would have included a completion of the border fence and a national card check provision. There still would have been a stimulus, but it would have included a capital gains tax cut and a corporate tax cut -- and the jobs situation would be somewhat better. (And the media would be pummeling President McCain with the horrors of 7-8% unemployment... and having a field day with stories about sniping between McCain's people and Palin's people. :) )

But we wouldn't have Obamacare, or the rampant corruption of the crony capitalism of the Obama administration.

And that *is* a world-changing consequence of the last election that we all have to live with. It's going to be incredibly difficult to put that genie back in the bottle.

End of times metaphors perfectly encapsulate what's going on here. People believe that some candidate with no coalition is going to waltz into the presidency and create drastic, permanent change. It's not going to happen.

I could have just as easily used Hegelian world-historical figures as my metaphor. I chose not to.

Clint -- Coalition is the key word here. Legislatures make the law, not executives.

Scott M wrote: Don't worry, SM. I'm an active Christian (I'm on the softball team and everything) and I didn't even blink at the mention. It was obviously metaphorical.

That's part of the problem, Scott. Many of today's Christians not only don't recognize Christian baiting when they hear it, they don't even blink when they should recognize it.

But I'm a reasonable person. Explain to me how doomsday terminology is a metaphor for a belief that "electing someone with not enough or simply no political experience will somehow bring about massive political change."

End of times metaphors perfectly encapsulate what's going on here. People believe that some candidate with no coalition is going to waltz into the presidency and create drastic, permanent change. It's not going to happen.

Beyond your horseshit about the metaphor, who, prior to Clint at 3:29, besides you and maybe Lucius, ever posited on this thread "that some candidate with no coalition is going to waltz into the presidency and create drastic, permanent change?"

Given that the answer is "nobody," who are you talking to? ("I urge you all to read this person's post carefully and consider it." 1:59)

who, prior to Clint at 3:29, besides you and maybe Lucius, ever posited on this thread "that some candidate with no coalition is going to waltz into the presidency and create drastic, permanent change?"

I see this concept constantly in threads here. The threads are usually about Palin. The basic idea is encapsulated in Lucius's post, to a tee. The belief is that a single politician with no coalition holding a four-year office will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape.

And now you're calling me a bad Christian in a backhanded way, are you not?

What are you, 7M's apprentice with the straw men? I might be saying that you don't recognize Christian bashing or that you don't blink when you do. I'm not saying that there is some Biblical admonition in the matter defining "bad Christians."

Another possibility is that you are right. A third is that you are stooging for 7M.

Seven Machos wrote: I see this concept constantly in threads here. ... The belief is that a single politician with no coalition holding a four-year office will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape.

In fact, very few of the regular commenters, if any, are naive enough to espouse this position as you have stated it. None today.

As I have been pointing out, this is a straw man adhered to by you and used by you to patronize other posters.

If you have any other straw men or red herrings to offer up to draw attention from that point, this would be the time.

Hombre -- Palin shouldn't run because she won't win and, if she does win, her presidency will be a massive disappointment on a par with Obama. The two candidates are, in fact, peas in a pod: young, inexperienced politicians who became famous largely because they gave a good speech at a convention.

Palin will be a failure for the same reasons Obama has been a failure. Both offer little more than attitude and energy. I have used the terminology of Christianity as a metaphor to express the idea that it is a deeply cherished myth in our society and many others that some single person can bring about massive, historical political change without need for a coalition of willing others -- in this case, lawmakers.

Cain will not win, period. His is a vanity campaign. I applaud it. I like his ideas. But that's what it is.

Peter is right. You are way to quick to be insulted. Are you in a motorcycle gang, by chance?

Additionally,there is no relationship between our discussion and my exchange with 7M about his so-called "metaphor." I'm fairly sure you know that. I'm also fairly sure you know that a metaphor requires some similarity or correlation between concepts.

@Seven Machos: It is difficult to imagine why you feel constrained to lecture me about Palin's and Cain's political prospects. I have expressed no opinion here about the prospects of either, so there is no need for correction or embellishment.

You wrote: Peter is right. You are way to quick to be insulted. Are you in a motorcycle gang, by chance?

Let's see, red herrings, straw men, and now appeal to false authority and ad hominem. My hat's off to you. You are a master of the logical fallacy. Or is that unintentional?

You wrote: Shredding the Obama mystique and capturing the Senate is not a worthwhile goal because it implies that Obama is still president.

Earth to 7M. Obama will still be POTUS during the campaign (and probably after). And capturing the Senate is a worthwhile goal for the Repubs regardless of who is POTUS.

It is difficult to imagine why you feel constrained to lecture me about Palin's and Cain's political prospects.It is difficult to imagine why you feel constrained to lecture me about Palin's and Cain's political prospects.

The thread is about Cain's presidential prospects. Also, I don't feel constrained. Do you feel constrained?

7M wrote: Hombre -- Please elucidate for us how anything I have said is a slur against Christianity in any way.

A metaphor is "the expression of an understanding of one concept in terms of another concept, where there is some similarity or correlation between the two."

There is no similarity or correlation between theological doomsday terminology and "the belief ... that a single politician with no coalition holding a four-year office will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape." Therefore, your reference was either: a) not a metaphor, but a jibe directed toward two overtly Christian politicians and their equally overtly and ardent Christian supporters (If it had come from Bill Maher it would have been readily recognized as such.), or, it was an example of a bad metaphor.

So I'll concede it was not a jibe if you'll concede it was a bad metaphor.

Hombre -- The rapture and tribulation are exactly single politicians with no coalitions will cause sweeping, permanent change to the political landscape. Or did you assume that the Antichrist and Jesus would come with voting blocs? Senators sitting next to their thrones?

Marshal,I think the criticisms of Cain on his Afghanistan response carry weight. If you're going to throw your hat in the ring you do your homework on the major issues beforehand. ...This isn't being asked an arcane detail on energy policy. I think he hurt his chances with this reponse on this topic.

Even worse, how the hell did he not know what "Right of Return" means? That's hardly an arcane detail of foreign policy -- it's been in the news frequently, for decades.

Or did you assume that the Antichrist and Jesus would come with voting blocs? Senators sitting next to their thrones?

Take a second (first?) look at your Bible, dude.

Oh, now I see the similarity. Of course. The earthly Republican candidates of whom you speak are supernaturally supported, come without voting blocs or elections, and can be expected to wreak havoc on the earth and populace after being anointed by Satan or God.

What he means is she does not have the support of the political class. He equates that with "totally alone" because he was actually comatose through the campaigns, fund raising efforts and elections of 2010.

And of course the fact that Palin, undeclared as a candidate, finishes in the top three for the Republican nomination also means nothing.

This guy is a first rate political analyst in addition to being an unparalleled theologian. lol

Concerning Palin, if she continues to go it alone, and not work with the Republican party, what lawmakers will be there for her to vote on the legislation she wishes to sign?

If there is a repeat of 2010 and the Repubs hold the House and capture the Senate with the Tea Party's help, and If Palin seeks and receives the Repub nomination, and If she wins - by some miracle - what are the Repubs in Congress going to do, vote with the Dems?

On the other hand, if the Tea Partiers and the conservatives who are not part of the political class stay home or oppose the RINOs in the general election, the Repubs are done as a matter of mathematics, not speculation.

Hombre -- You need to learn parliamentary procedure. You do understand that Palin can't introduce a bill in Congress, right? And you understand that bills and parts of bills must get through committees that would have, in a Republican-stacked House and Senate, perhaps two or three more Republicans than Democrats, right? And you understand that several members on both sides are going to be moderates, right?

Are you really ignorant of the fact that presidents have legislative agendas? Are you really dull enough to suppose that it will go unnoticed and unpunished if congressional members of the president's own party join forces with the other party to torpedo that agenda?

But then you are the same Seven Machos who insisted repeatedly that capturing the Senate was "not a worthwhile goal" for Republicans.

That observation alone speaks volumes about your political acumen. You really are clueless.

insisted repeatedly that capturing the Senate was "not a worthwhile goal" for Republicans

I said it is not worthwhile to pursue a strategy which might sacrifice the presidency for the Senate. I was responding to a poster above who suggested that it would be okay to lose the presidency if Republicans gain the Senate:

YOU: Even if Cain can't beat Obama, he can shred the mystique without being called racist, while the Republicans go on to capture the Senate.

@Peter Hoh: Thanks for the link. I don't consider articles that respectfully explore candidates' strengths and weaknesses on issues to be of the same ilk as those that discuss comments made about other candidates and include misleading, inflammatory paraphrasing and unwarranted assumptions. (E.g., Santorum and Pawlenty in the National Journal piece.)

The former are legitimate, the latter are hit pieces.

For clarification, it is not my position that the media feels the need to disparage any Republican emerging as a strong contender at this stage of the campaign. At 10:36 I wrote: "First smear the woman, then smear the black man. We can't have a serious Republican contender who counters the stereotype or the media template. Only white males need apply."